Liberty Still Lives - Second Amendment

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1584353' date='Jun 26 2008, 09:50 PM'] Why would I debate that? That's pretty much what I said... lol[/quote]


really? [quote]That being said... I understand where CiSD is coming from in saying that the right to life or the right of dignity are not the same as the right to own a gun.[/quote]

It sounds like you were affirming that they could be different, which is why I responded about how they are tied into each other...

[Alycin]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' post='1585147' date='Jun 27 2008, 07:18 PM']really?

It sounds like you were affirming that they could be different, which is why I responded about how they are tied into each other...[/quote]

I clarified it with the part that you DIDN'T quote. lol.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1584191' date='Jun 26 2008, 08:16 PM']God gave us the right to life and gave us our dignity. He also gave us a "right" to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones. The U.S. Constitution protects and strengthens that right by allowing us to own guns.[/quote]

In other words, just because we don't leave the womb with lethal weapons in hand, doesn't mean that God does not condone us protecting our life with them. I can see where CiSD is differentiating between being created with an inherent right to life and dignity. Those are very specific things that God created within us. The right to own a gun is not specific but falls under the category of right to protect one's life.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1584477' date='Jun 27 2008, 12:05 AM']Then why do they not want to close the gun show loop-hole?[/quote]

Well, there are extremists in just about every organization. I don't know if that stance is reflective of the rank-and-file NRA membership. Even though I believe in the second amendment and the right to own a handgun and hope that Chicago's ban is overturned, I do support stuff like Brady and closing the gun show loophole.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1585168' date='Jun 27 2008, 06:43 PM']I clarified it with the part that you DIDN'T quote. lol.[/quote]


Yeah, I saw the whole post. Your position was still confusing to me. Sorry to be dense :-p

[Winchester]

I wonder what the Wise Latina thinks about this decision.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 December 2009 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1261544075' post='2024875']
I wonder what the Wise Latina thinks about this decision.
[/quote]

We'll soon find out. McDonald v. Chicago is scheduled for oral arguments on March 2, 2010 ...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/february-arguments-day-by-day-2/

[Winchester]

My guess is the liberals will say that it's okay for a local power to violate the Constitution when it's a right the liberals don't recognize.

Not in so many words, of course.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Winchester' date='23 December 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1261546485' post='2024889']
My guess is the liberals will say that it's okay for a local power to violate the Constitution when it's a right the liberals don't recognize.

Not in so many words, of course.
[/quote]

Actually, I figured that it would be in more words ...

[Winchester]

It's an idiom.

[Sternhauser]

.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Restrictions on types of knives is also a violation of the Second Amendment.

[Sternhauser]

[size="2"][quote name='Winchester' date='23 December 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1261546485' post='2024889']
My guess is the liberals will say that it's okay for a local power to violate the Constitution when it's a right the liberals don't recognize.

Not in so many words, of course.
[/quote]

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the mini-States. It was intended to apply to the Federal State, as a check against its powers. A State legislature can pass any law it wants about firearms and their carriage. They can also establish any religion they want. Many mini-States had official State religions well into the mid-19th Century.

This is what Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had to say about its purpose:

"But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. . . .

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act,could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive." [url="http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html"]http://www.usconstit...madisonbor.html[/url]

U.S. vs Miller (1939) was a bad ruling, but a nearly sound holding. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is [b]any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[/b]
Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph.,Tenn., 154, 158." [url="http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm"]http://usgovinfo.abo...blusvmiller.htm[/url]

[/size][font="Verdana"][size="2"]I really don't care what they say, ultimately, because their arbitrary decrees are not morally binding, but if the blackrobes had stuck to that holding, there would be little question about what constitutes "arms." Military infantry weapons. Anything that could be carried and used by any one man. At the time, the military didn't use shotguns with barrels of fewer than 18'' in length. It was a cop-out, and a contradiction, because its use [i]could [/i]"contribute to the common defense," but they failed to notice that fact. What is more likely? That they noticed that fact and willfully ignored it. [/size][/font] [font="Verdana"][size="2"]

Here's what a contemporary had to say about the subject:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. [b][i]Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . .[/i][/b] The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe, [i]Pennsylvania Gazette[/i], Feb. 20, 1788[/size][/font][size="2"]

What I'd like to hear is Scalia's explanation of what in the world a "reasonable restriction on a right" is. A restriction of a right is called an "infringement." There is no such thing as a reasonable infringement of a right. You have [i]every[/i] right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, contrary to blackrobe Holmes. You do [i]not [/i]have the right to put others in unnecessary danger, especially under false pretenses. It is not a restriction on a right to say that you may not put others in unnecessary danger, because there [i]is[/i] no right to put others in unnecessary danger. Unfortunately, Scalia believes in infringements of rights. He should know better. He's a baptized Catholic.

~Sternhauser[/size]

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 December 2009 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1261548101' post='2024904']
[size="2"]

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the mini-States. It was intended to apply to the Federal State, as a check against its powers. A State legislature can pass any law it wants about firearms and their carriage. They can also establish any religion they want. Many mini-States had official State religions well into the mid-19th Century. [/size]
[/quote]

The 14th amendment extended that to states as well.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='23 December 2009 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1261600010' post='2025101']
The 14th amendment extended that to states as well.
[/quote]

Did it? There are strong arguments that the 14th Amendment was never even legitimately ratified, especially because the Southern State legislatures only ratified it under duress.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The word "right" is not present anywhere. Generally, authors of laws and amendments are very careful and very particular about the terminology they use. "The rule of law" is subject to torturous interpretation by men, more than most people believe or care to admit.

"Incorporation" has the same origin as "abortion is protected in the 'penumbra' of the Fourth Amendment," and "reasonable restriction of a right." That origin is "nonsense."

~Sternhauser

Edited December 24, 2009 by Sternhauser